Panel Warns Against Transferring Gun Export Controls From State to Commerce

The Trump administration's proposal to transfer firearms-related export controls from the State Department to Commerce would cause significant harm to global security and would loosen necessary controls over dangerous weapons, according to a panel organized by Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif. Speaking at a House office building on April 23, gun-control experts and advocates attempted to debunk the administration's rationalization for transferring authority for gun export controls. Several pointed to the dangers of increased weapons exporting, saying the U.S. could become complicit in killings around the world. Others pointed to lapses in regulations if the changes take effect.

Jeff Abramson, a senior fellow and the former deputy director of the Arms Control Association, said the move from State to Commerce would eliminate the notifications Congress is required to receive when there is a firearms export of more than $1 million. “In the past few years, questionable arms sales to the Philippines and to Turkey have been held up because Congress was involved,” Abramson said. “If this moves over to the Commerce Control List, those congressional notifications will not occur any longer … that is a transparency and a governance issue that I think is bipartisan. Congress should not allow the changes to occur for that reason.”

In a March 5 letter, Torres sought support from House members for a bill that would maintain current export control policies instead of adopting the Trump administration's proposal (see 1903060021). And in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in February, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., announced a hold on Trump’s proposal that would not be lifted unless State “addresses the dangerous and far-reaching implications of this proposal.” Among several changes, the administration's proposal would not require U.S. gun and ammunition exporters to register with the State Department.

The move would also likely increase the volume of U.S. firearm exports, Abramson said. “If commerce is given the say, which is what would happen, they would always vote to export,” he said. Lindsay Nichols, federal policy director for Gifford Law Center, agreed. She called State’s current export control system “long-standing and well developed,” adding that the “State Department has expertise in foreign policy and human rights. The Commerce Department's central mission is to promote commerce.”

Kyleanne Hunter, vice president of programs for Brady, a gun-control advocacy organization, said deregulation will lead to more violent conflict around the world. She also said an idea was “floated” that would transfer the responsibility of export control investigations to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Hunter quickly downplayed that idea, saying the ATF is “well over-stretched in enforcing laws that do exist” and “only has the capacity to investigate around 8 percent of federally licensed” gun dealers. “We have an agency that is incredibly under-resourced, that hasn't been able to really adequately do its job of enforcing within this country, and now it’s being proposed to have an entirely new set of relationships that are going to fall under its purview.” Abramson said it should fall under State to regulate gun exports. “The State Department is much more capable and the proper place for that,” he said. “That is not a Commerce Department role.”